The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is facing scrutiny due to its recent actions regarding climate assessment. Critics claim the organization is accelerating a review that appears to be politically motivated against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s energy reforms.
According to Politico, NASEM is utilizing internal funds to expedite a climate review scheduled for release this September. This review aims to “inform” the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as it seeks to repeal the Obama administration’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding. This finding has been foundational in establishing regulations that critics argue have hampered the nation’s energy sector. Daren Bakst, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, expressed concern, stating, “NASEM’s decision to do a fast-track study on greenhouse gas emissions…undermines the legitimacy of the National Academies.”
Bakst highlighted the rushed timeline, noting that NASEM announced its report on August 7, with a completion date set for September. He suggested that such haste casts doubt on the integrity of the process, implying that the findings may have been predetermined. “This rush gives the impression they have their conclusions and are just working backwards,” he emphasized.
The criticism deepened as concerns arose regarding NASEM’s ties to groups perceived as driving progressive agendas, particularly those connected to the New Venture Fund and Arabella Advisors. Travis Fisher, director of energy policy studies at the Cato Institute, acknowledged this overlap, stating, “It’s appropriate to ask whether government-funded researchers and organizations might have a conflict of interest in setting the terms of the climate debate.” Fisher underscored the perception that alarmist narratives result in more funding for research, affecting the neutrality expected from such institutions.
James Taylor, president of the Heartland Institute, characterized NASEM as a “leftist” entity dependent on government support, asserting that it has strayed from its original scientific mission to become merely political. He noted the lack of credibility in recent assessments, pointing out that only a small percentage of authors on a recent climate science report held PhDs, with nearly equal representation from environmental activist groups and even politicians among its contributors. Taylor quipped, “NAS is a joke and has no credibility at all.”
Responding to the pushback, a NASEM spokesperson emphasized that the study was funded by private donations and aims to guide public comments for the EPA. This claim of external funding was echoed by representatives of both the New Venture Fund and Arabella Advisors, who asserted their roles as support organizations rather than direct funders of political initiatives.
This ongoing situation unfolds as the Trump administration works to dismantle the greenhouse gas endangerment finding established in 2009 by the EPA, which deemed greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has publicly committed to reversing the endangerment finding, arguing its continuation leads to excessive regulation that can cost the U.S. economy substantially. “With this proposal,” Zeldin stated, “the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers.”
This critical moment highlights the complexities at the intersection of science, government funding, and political advocacy. As the EPA’s public comment period approaches its mid-September deadline, the attention on NASEM’s review process raises essential questions about the integrity and intent of federally and privately funded research institutions in shaping climate policy. The stakes are high, as the outcomes of such research not only influence regulatory practices but also resonate deeply within the broader energy and environmental discourse in America.
"*" indicates required fields
